For the life of me, I have to wonder if we detested atheists could ever get an apology from the apologists at Triablogue. Here's a chance to find out.

Over on the Triablogue site, for whatever reason, they rose to the defense of defamation-suit-potential-extraordinaire FrankWalton. I won't link to his site, and I recommend that everyone else refrains from doing so as well, but suffice it to say that those familiar with his antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation, wondering what the label "Christian" means to Frank, and regurgitating their lunch in response to his posts.

Let me also say that I have never in my entire life threatened anyone with a lawsuit before Frank Walton. And, I don't intend to keep up the habit. He's "special" and as such, deserves "special" treatment. Reginald Finley is seriously considering trying a libel case against him, and for the use of his entire radio show by Gene Cook without permission, but we'll see if it works out. I am hoping so. Someone needs to place a face with the stink. Walton has been allowed to ferment in the dark for too long, and sunlight is a good disinfectant.

After my initial response to this satirical article written by Steve about how really I'm just an ass, and Frank isn't so bad, I thought I could handle silently watching as the comments section filled with pejoratives and all the Christ's-blood-drenched love they could muster. Indeed, I even thought I could hold my tongue after Steve pretended I hadn't linked to authorities:

[regarding copyright protection] Hard to tell, but it must be in there somewhere since Danny says it’s so

Well, the fact that I linked to two copyright experts, Ivan Hoffman, and the law firm Oppedahl & Larson, who also "say so", eluded Steve. Steve stumbled on:

And I’m sure I don’t have to remind you all that when you’re quoting the average atheist, nothing could be more defamatory to his personal character than to accurately reproduce his very own words.

Well, you'll note that Steve didn't bother to follow his own assertion, nor to link to my article on the subject. After my leaving my first response, including much of what I'm writing here, Steve didn't have much to say.

...That is, until someone left this hilarious comment:

Did you know that the photo in your profile is of a gay guy?

Steve immediately found the courage to tackle this assertion [that Cary Grant was gay] by quoting at length from carygrant.net, which bases its defense of Cary's heterosexuality on, among other things, the logic that, had Grant indeed been gay, he wouldn't have had so many wives...

Yeah, pretty solid reasoning, I know. Unfortunately for Steve, it appears that Randolph Scott, one of Cary's alleged lovers, confided in George Cukor that he did, indeed, have a romantic relationship with Grant, the first person to ever use the phrase "gay" on film, ad-libbing it in (Bringing Up Baby, 1938). But hey, we're godless, immoral heathens, so it's okay to be gay, it's okay to like Cary Grant, it's even okay to be like Cary Grant [however that was], to be who you are. Hey, we came out of the closet of disbelief, so we can sympathize with anyone who may be torn over such issues...not that I'm saying Steve is, I'm saying anyone.

I'm a key figure in a shadow government conclave that seeks to conceal the truth about the existence of extraterrestrials. Just kidding. I'm a 22-year-old student who is in love with Jesus Christ.

Berny, just gotta say, I'm up in Gainesville, only about five hours away from you down in Miami. If you ever drive up I-75, stop by the Chemistry Lab Building at UF, go up to the fourth floor, room 409, and we can chat about how "in love" you are with Jeebus, how much of a joke I am, and how much of a pansy. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting. And no, this isn't threatening, I am not implying bodily harm, I am implying that you likely aren't as courageous, and I'm likely not as pansified, in person.

Good ol' American machismo? Perhaps, but at least I'm letting anyone and everyone know where they can find this ol' joke of a pansy, to see if, in person, they feel the same way after making my acquaintance -- that I'm but a joke and a pansy, and, more importantly, if they feel emboldened enough to tell me. Hell, there's nothing like a pixelated screen to give us fightin' words, now is there? Speaking of which, Frank Walton is rather terrified at the prospect of someone finding out where he can be located...all the while calling me "coward". Does that break your irony meter, too?

Daniel Morgan reminds me of the ghastly teenagers I used to teach. Old man, if you can't express yourself without swearing, say nothinbg at all. You ought to have your mouth washed out with soapy water!

That's right, pap! And those damned whipper-snappers better not get on your lawn again, or you'll call the paddy-wagon on the laddies, eh?

Grandpa's legal advice?

Oh, and Mr. Morgan, you lose your control over letters when you send them to someone else.

Interesting. So, when you send a letter out in your mailbox, do I get to go intercept it? Hell, you sent it out. When I received a copy of Dennett's Breaking the Spell, I then had the full authority to reproduce it, since it had been "sent" to me? Obviously, I do indeed have the "control", in the physical sense, of what I choose to do with this physical copy, just as others do with any work protected by copyright. But, what the law permits me us to do is pretty clear.

Man, how did those Enron execs miss the "E-mails are copyrighted and cannot be divulged to third parties" legal tactic?

Well, I suppose, CalvinDude, that you fail to see the technical difference between reproducing a copyrighted work and the right to privacy in a criminal case. By the way, do you think, CD, that the government may, just maybe, have had to get a warrant to get those emails? Perhaps you should contact the two law offices I cited above to correct them, since you now, in addition to your abundant knowledge of the most recondite theological topics, have apparently garnered a J.D. CD goes on:

But in any case, if we want to talk about "libel" that's not by implication, I think Morgan already engaged in that when he said (see above): "...but I suppose critiquing a lawyer is a little more difficult, since none of you know copyright law from your anal sphincter, eh?" Thus Morgan is not implying but explicitly stating that "none of you" (being the people at Triablogue, since Morgan started with the kind address of "Trilly-boogers:") are intelligent enough to tell the difference between copyright law and their anal sphincter.

But don't worry, Morgan. I doubt that any of the Triabloguers consider that libel any more than anyone on Earth (besides you) considers what Walton said to be libel.

Hmmm...think that way, and you'd never graduate from law school, my friend. Any statement preceded by "but I suppose..." and ends in a "?" is clearly both a question and a statement of opinion, which is always defended from libel by free speech in America. Frank's statement contained no such clause. Statements of fact are the only possible contenders for libelous standing. It's okay, you probably specialize in divine law, right?

Well, I read all this, and still did okay holding my tongue, until Gene Bridges wrote:

No blogger is required to open his blog to comments. FYI, Detective, Mr. Morgan does not allow Christians to leave comments on his blog, so what you want Mr. Walton to do, your own Mr. Morgan refuses. He allows those who agree with him to post comments, but not those who disagree. He considers this evangelism.

Well, hot damn, that's news to me! Finally, the pressure had begun to mount, and my ears were whistling...I broke, and responded:

That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one. Just go to my blog and read any of the 48 Haloscan comments on the post about Frank.

Daniel "the coward" Morgan: That's a lie. And a rather easily demonstrated one.

Frank Walton: LOL, Now that's a lie. And even more demonstrably illustrated. Mr. Bridges is not talking about your personal blog, Danny. He's talking about the "outofchristianity" blog. You know the blog where you didn't allow me to make my comment? You yourself told me: [he cherrypicks quotes from these emails]

Get it, now? Now why don't you make the phase to these new blogs I have on you.

Well, thanks, but no thanks. Your desperation to pull people to your blog doesn't faze me though. So, since I was on a roll, I wrote up the following:

All,

Perhaps Gene's use of "on his blog" makes me out to be the liar, and not Gene?

If Gene meant "on the outofchristianity blog", which is not mine, but Aaron Rossetti's, then he should clarify his point.

And perhaps he'll want to retract and replace the name "Aaron" for "Mr. Morgan", since I don't set the moderation policy at Aaron's site.

While I am sure Gene needs defending, I would think he doesn't need it from the likes of Frank W. No, I won't be "phasing" over to his blog, and as Frank may or may not have noted, I haven't visited it today, and don't intend to ever deign myself to do so again...it's like a mental quicksand pit which sucks the IQ from your head.

Perhaps Frank's reading comprehension, and Gene's presumption on the matter, proved as shallow as could be predicted, in that their equivocation of the outofchristianity blog as my blog, when it was clearly and explicitly stated to the contrary, was not understood?

Aaron made it clear that he does not want any attempts at evangelism within his forum. It is more "support group" than "invite to apologists"... as if you and yours don't have enough places to graze for that...Aaron does not consider himself a "debater" nor his blog a "debate forum" and thus your puerile attempts at getting him into a debate with Gene Cook are silly. Aren't there enough unbelievers out there for you to waste your miserable life arguing with?

Was this so hard for you to understand, Frank? Gene? It's Aaron's site, his policy, his decision.

My own comment policy is simple: wide open. Gratuitous insults and threats will of course run out my patience eventually, but so long as the person has something of substance to say, I will leave it alone.

Therefore, yes, Gene told an untruth. Perhaps he was mistaken, but he still told a lie. That is not my policy, and that is not my site. He said both were. If he just apologizes and retracts, then he can save face. Obviously, Frank not only lost his long ago, he keeps it private while calling others cowards. It breaks even my high-tech irony meter.

Yes, I helped Aaron set up the HTML for his site, and submitted my own testimonial/deconversion account. I did not set his policy on moderation. I am one of three moderators. I follow Aaron's policy, I am not the author of it.

The same logic in holding me accountable for his policy is a demonstration of the mental prowess that keeps you all within the Christian belief system.

Thus, Frank Walton is still the same imbecile, and Gene's presumption was still wrong, should he even have made it "in good faith".

It's still a lie, even if one based on a mistaken presumption rather than of knowing malice. Gene should not have referred to "Mr. Morgan...on his blog...Mr. Morgan refuses" when he should have referred to "Aaron...on outofchristianity.blogspot.com...Aaron refuses policy".

Ergo, the mistakes are his, yet, for whatever reason, here I am defending myself from a lie and an imbecile who tries to make it right. I can forgive Gene's mistaken presumption, but the malicious sort of ignorance Frank displays is intolerable--he was already told this...and yet he defends a lie. And, he won't show his face on his site, nor divulge his location, while I have done both, and he calls me a coward. Oh, the irony...

Poor b-----d.

Now, let's see if I [mean old atheist, immoral, litigious!] will get an apology from Gene [humble, apologist, Christian]. Let's also see if the Trilly-boogers continue to make associations and rush to the aid of the likes of Frank Walton. This is getting funnier by the moment.

37
comments:

First they attacked Babinski, then exbeliever, then me, then Dagoods, and now it's your turn Morgan. Step up! How does it feel? Just kidding. But I wonder how anyone would feel if they were attacked like this...anyone. It's not pleasant, nor kind, nor productive, nor advancing the arguments pro or con, nor fair. It's a digression. Why can't they just deal with the arguments. leave personalities out of it. But they drag us down into the mud with them to have it out. It's disgusting. And we have each been dragged down there to defend ourselves. Why? Because our integrity matters to us. And who says atheists don't have any morals? Integrity. That's a moral character. Thanks for having it Daniel!

Both you and Frank have been around each other for too long, and it isn't helping either one of you. My advice to you both would be to take a break from these internet battles, and simply cease addressing each other.

Whatever goal you have for posting on this blog is not being accomplished, and the Gospel of grace certainly isn't being promoted.

Why bother to engage Walton in any way, shape or form? Interacting with him on the net is no more fruitful than arguing with junior high school kids. This isn't a pejorative dig at Walton, even if he is deserving, it is just an accurate observation. By recognizing Walton's existence you lend him more credibility than he deserves.

Just look at the tactics of this blog. I have read plenty of insults, and it seems that the atheists here just want someone to feel sorry for them. Stand up and take your lumps like an adult should. You are letting people see one side of the story and not being fair, and all I can honestly say is that some here are hypocrites with no equal. An excellent example that I have personally experienced is from this blog (which readers here are familiar with):

http://notmanywise.blogspot.com/

This guy screens all the comments. I have written several times, and each time my comments are not posted supposedly because they don't deal with the actual argument (yet he mysteriously posts all the praises of his blog which have absolutely nothing to do with any arguments). He sets up the rules, ignores important points from those that disagree and then plays judge, jury and executioner. Is that what you call fair? Help this Christian out, please. I don't see any backing of the bold claims made here. My invitation is open. I post at www.carm.org on the boards here:

http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v/forumdisplay.php?f=46

My username is deathofseasons. Exbeliever (or any other atheist here), if you want to put your money where your mouth is, come on over. I am a presuppositionalist and will gladly defend my points in detail in front of an audience where the posts are there for all to see. Stop talking and let's see what you got :) Let's see how well you can debunk Christianity when punches are being thrown back!

I certainly wasn't implying that you wanted the Gospel of grace to be promoted. No, my systematic theology and doctrine concerning the absolute and undivided depravity of unregenerate man would definitely prohibit me from making such a careless statement ;-D

What I meant was that neither you nor Frank are accomplishing your goals (Frank's goals being, hopefully, to promote the Gospel of grace).

I registered and I have seen and used the option to change the display format of the forums...thank Jeebus. I'm not sure what sort of battle of wits you were looking for but I've registered as Nihlo. Avast!

Since I linked to The Detective's site, "The Real Frank Walton", it's rather unfortunate that therealfrankwalton.blogspot.com decided to pander to Frank's "Ted Bell is a racist" "The Detective is a racist" by posting another image of Frank that depicts him as a lil' black Sambo.

Detective, why give this pathetic twerp ammo to use against you? It diverts the attention from the things he's done and makes you look bad. Take down the racially-offensive material, please.

Anon said:it seems that the atheists here just want someone to feel sorry for themin the real worldas in dreamsnothing isquite what it seems

I want your pity about as badly as I want your religion. Perhaps you never got an education in writing, but the introduction and conclusion of any piece of writing are supposed to tie together a major thesis: in this case, whether or not Gene will apologize. Did you miss that? He told a lie, and I called him on it. I won't hold my breath waiting for one, nor for you to admit this.

Stand up and take your lumps like an adult shouldUm, okay? And how is that? What am I doing "wrong"? Letting them air their lies without calling them on it?

You are letting people see one side of the story and not being fairI quoted what they said, and linked back to the original source. You're a moron.

and all I can honestly say is that some here are hypocrites with no equalTypically a hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does another. Where did I do that? Where did exbeliever? He makes it pretty clear that his site is specifically for people to raise the bar and argue with him about his writing, and that he'll delete pure crap. I'm sorry that you can't meet his standard, but where did he say otherwise?

To be fair, Daniel, there is a difference between a 'lie' and 'being mistaken/confused'. You are owed an apology either way, as you were misrepresented in a negative way, but I can't see how it's a clear lie.

According to Webster's:Lie (#4, noun):Function: nounEtymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker2 : something that misleads or deceives3 : a charge of lying

A lie can be told with or without the intent to deceive, so long as it is clearly misleading, deceiving, untrue, inaccurate, etc.

Then quit whining about what all these Christians do. This blog has something negative to say about some Christian on a regular basis; it is hardly a blog that debunks Christianity.

Perhaps you never got an education in writing

I see, so you can't resist insulting others?

You are letting people see one side of the story and not being fairI quoted what they said, and linked back to the original source. You're a moron.

And another insult.

Where did exbeliever? He makes it pretty clear that his site is specifically for people to raise the bar and argue with him about his writing, and that he'll delete pure crap. I'm sorry that you can't meet his standard, but where did he say otherwise?

Ex-believer says that he will only posts comments that present arguments and yet he posts praises of his blog while ignoring several of my comments that dealt specifically with how a presuppositionalist argues. Ex-believer is not providing the full story with his readers, and I think he is afraid to have a one on one debate out in the open. He would rather impress his audience with his apparent proficiency in formal logic and how he can put arguments into syllogistic form then have an actual debate. He wants to control what is posted, what is said, what his opponents can say and where they can begging their arguments. He basically cuts them off at the knees and then wants to kick box them. That's not only unfair, it's dishonest. My challenge remains. I post at carm as deathofsseasons and we can have a one on one debate where I will present an argument for the existence of God. Ex-believer can either back up his claims or stay in his controlled environments.

Aside from the fact that you were indeed insulted, you have ignored the fact that the substance of your charge (that only one side is being presented) was refuted. He quoted and linked, which is more than what is to be expected.

Go ahead and post your argument for the existence of God on Carm. I will address it.

You may have noticed that I haven't contributed to this blog in several months. You may also have noticed that I'm no longer listed under the green section as a contributor (though my "testimony" is still linked under the "About the Contributors" section). You may also have noticed that I wrote a post entitled "Exbeliever's Swan Song" in which I said that I was leaving DC.

[I usually only check here once a week or so and rarely read the comments. It was chance that I found your "challenge."]

It's interesting how you talk about debate. It's almost as if I'm being called out for a fight. It's the whole debate-as-war metaphor. I prefer the debate-as-education metaphor.

As far as your attempted comments on my blog, I'm not sure which ones they were. There were a few posts that I felt argued with my methodology rather than the arguments. I said that I was not interested in discussing methodology. In my comments policy post, I wrote, "If I disallow one of your comments that you think should not have been disallowed, feel free to start a blog of your own and give your side of the story."

If you think that I have avoided discussions with presuppositionalists, check out the many conversations I have had with Paul Manata, Calvindude, and any number of others. Read the posts that I have contributed here and on my blog.

The way I see it, there are two possibilities:

1) I didn't feel that your comments were worth a response.

Or

2) Your comments proved that you are just too smart for me, and I knew I would "lose" any debate with you.

If it was the first case, then I'm sorry you didn't make the cut. I encourage you to keep trying though. Maybe one day I'll find something you write worth responding to.

If it was the second case (in spite of my long record of debating presuppositionalists), I guess I'll have to live with my cowardice that you have now exposed.

[As far as the fact that I post comments of praise for my blog and not all comments from Christians, that is true. I like the comments of praise. Maybe I should change my comment policy to say that I will only post comments that relate to my arguments OR praise my blog.]

PS--The other day, a Christian actually posted a comment that almost dealt with my argument and it is now here. Also, I recently had a discussion with another presuppositionalist (a student who studied apologetics under Michael Butler from Bahnsen Theological Seminary). You can find that conversation (on my blog), here.

It's interesting how you talk about debate. It's almost as if I'm being called out for a fight. It's the whole debate-as-war metaphor. I prefer the debate-as-education metaphor.

I am not calling you out for a fight in the least. What I do disagree with however is a person who is supposedly studying philosophy and yet doesn't offer those that disagree a fair say and then makes comments like:

"At this point, we can begin to piece together TAG (something that very few Internet "apologists" are willing to state explicitly)."

You are of course welcome to run your blog how you like, but don't pretend that it's fair when you won't allow comments that do directly influence how we argue over such matters and our critical analysis of them. My offer still stands. You are welcome to come to carm and have a friendly debate with me. IF not, I won't mention it any longer. Thank you for responding.

. . . don't pretend that it's fair when you won't allow comments that do directly influence how we argue over such matters and our critical analysis of them.

I haven't. Every comment that I didn't publish broke the explicit policy that I spelled out in my comments policy.

You are welcome to come to carm and have a friendly debate with me.

No thanks.

But you are welcome (as is anyone else) to make relevant comments to my posts on my blog.

My blog is very specific and I state this explicitly. I deal with arguments for the existence of a god or gods. I'm only interested in presuppositionalism when it makes an argument. Traditionally, presuppositionalists have used TAG. TAG is an argument and I want to examine it as such.

If you don't believe that an argument can be made, that basic beliefs cannot be supported deductively, etc., that is fine. You may be right. BUT THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN ON MY BLOG.

Historically, most apologists have tried to make some kind of argument. Aquinas, Craig, Bahnsen (three very different apologists) all make some kind of argument that can be analyzed. My blog is simply focused on those arguments. I am not concerned (on that blog) whether or not this is a valid method. I'm only interested in analyzing the arguments that people make for the existence of a god or gods.

Is that really too hard for you to understand?

I can retrieve the three comments that I haven't posted and prove that none of them presented an argument or corrected my representation of that argument. They all simply questioned my method.

Maybe my method is total shit! You are free to say so. But that isn't the point of my blog. All I want to do is analyze the arguments that people make for the existence of a god or gods. This goal necessarily excludes all kind of other concerns (e.g. epistemology, theology, etc.).

If you have an argument for the existence of a god or gods (or "the Christian God"), feel free to make it. Put it in the comment section of my introductory post. Paste it here too, if you want, with a note that says, "Let's see if exbeliever has the guts to post this."

If your apologetic doesn't believe that arguments can be made for the existence of a god or gods, then that's cool with me. Argue that elsewhere. I'll be happy talking with the thousands of Christians who do believe an argument can be made.

Anyone think I am being unfair here? I simply set a goal for what I want my blog to be about. I have goals for all of my blogs. I have one blog that details my marriage from the first time I met my wife until now (no, I won't tell you what it is because it is not anonymous). I have another blog that chronicles my PhD work. I don't mention atheism on either of those blogs. I don't mention politics either. They all have a focus as does my Not Many Wise blog.

Okay, I'm tired of defending myself now. I stated all of this clearly from the beginning at my blog and I don't see how repeating it will make any difference.

"...but suffice it to say that those familiar with his (Frank's) antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation, wondering what the label 'Christian' means to Frank, and regurgitating their lunch in response to his posts."

Since you said that his parents did drugs, I guess that's libel huh? Uh, I guess that means Frank can sue you.

(Laughter) But seriously Frank isn't like you, Daniel. Because he's courageous and he can just about take anything anybody says about him. You can't.

Let's read what Daniel said again, ". . .those familiar with his (Frank's) antics probably spend an equal amount of time wondering what drugs his parents used during his gestation"

Now, does Daniel make a claim about Frank's parents or does he make a claim about "those familiar with his (Frank's) antics"?

Let's see how these statements would differ:

(1) Frank's parents used drugs during his gestation.

(2) People who are familiar with Frank's antics wonder what drugs Frank's parents used during gestation.

What's the subject in the second sentence? (I'll help; "People who are familiar with Frank's antics). What action are these people doing? ("Wondering") What are they wondering? (what drugs Frank's parents used during gestation).

I don't know if Daniel's claim is true or not. I've never even thought about Frank's parents. But maybe other's have. In any case, it's not libel.

I haven't kept up on this whole thing. I haven't read Frank's posts or Daniel's. I only know what I've read here. I don't know if Frank said anything worthy of a lawsuit, and I don't care. I try to stay away from these people.

Yes, ex-believer, but Danny is making an assumption on Frank's parents. No more than Frank made an assumption on Danny's sex life, which is ironic because Danny first made an assumption on Frank's sex life. Yet Frank never considered it a libel worthy of a suit.

You're a little late. I'm sure you already read the "Libel?" post at the Triablogue (darn those trilly-boogers!), and so you're just repeating what has already been said, and I dealt with in the comments section there.

Note first that libel potential requires a statement of fact about someone. It is pretty clear here I am airing an opinion about an unspecified group of people (those familiar with Frank's antics) and what they probably spend their time wondering...

Am I denying that I indirectly insulted Frank...? Of course not. I first directly insulted Frank via email, who chose to "go public" with this spectacle, and my anger got the best of me, really. At the same time, though, I think this little flame war has been good for me. It has helped me to clearly expose the moral vacuity of some Christians [unnamed]. And, those with any sense will see that, and exactly what is going on here.

Sorry, Corey, but your thought about this disparaging comment isn't original, and let me ask you point blank: did you already read the post entitled "Libel?" on the Triablogue site?

BTW, the insult is indirectly to Frank only, as everyone understands the colloquial usage of "your parents used drugs during your gestation" is an insult to the person as it implies something happened to that person as a fetus which produced the negative traits we observe in them today. Everyone understands the colloquial usage. Except you, apparently. The reference to the parents is not to be taken seriously in this usage, nor any allegation of actual drug use, but instead, it is understood [by everyone but you and Steve, apparently] that the insult is to the person addressed.

I just posted all of your past comments that didn't make the cut here. So, even though you intentionally disregarded my comment policy and then complained when I did exactly what I said I would do, they are now on my blog. Happy?

Now, let's go back a little here. In this comment, it seems as if you are implying that you are willing to state TAG explicitly. Am I reading you right? Because you certainly didn't state it in the comments that I just posted to my blog.

If you are willing to state TAG (or any other argument for the existence of God) explicitly, then I would be more than willing to take you up on your debate offer (of course, this is what I was willing to do from the beginning on my blog, but you didn't seem to agree with this at the time).

Am I hearing you correctly? Are you willing to explicitly make an argument for the Christian God that we can debate? If that is, indeed, the case, I'll make you a guest contributor on my blog and we can have the discussion there.

I've noticed that both Corey and Frank have some difficulties with not only reading comprehension but also spelling and grammar. A good liberal arts education might help to rectify these issues in addition, hopefully, to correcting their tenuous grasp on argumentation.

If you are willing to state TAG (or any other argument for the existence of God) explicitly, then I would be more than willing to take you up on your debate offer (of course, this is what I was willing to do from the beginning on my blog, but you didn't seem to agree with this at the time).

Yes, I will state an argument for the existence of God. But I much prefer to post at carm (which is independent for both of us) and there are debate boards that are set aside for one on one debates. You can of course post the debate at your blog.

"First they attacked Babinski, then exbeliever, then me, then Dagoods, and now it's your turn Morgan. Step up! How does it feel? Just kidding. But I wonder how anyone would feel if they were attacked like this...anyone. It's not pleasant, nor kind, nor productive, nor advancing the arguments pro or con, nor fair. It's a digression. Why can't they just deal with the arguments. leave personalities out of it. But they drag us down into the mud with them to have it out. It's disgusting. And we have each been dragged down there to defend ourselves. Why? Because our integrity matters to us. And who says atheists don't have any morals? Integrity. That's a moral character. Thanks for having it Daniel!"

I cannot wait until they attack me! I would love to see how Frank Walton, this Gene fellow, and some of the Triabloggers respond to my stuff as more of it gets published!

I hate the format of Carm. How about email and then we can post it wherever we want?

Put a comment on my blog with your email address (I won't publish it). I'll write you and we can work out the details.

OK, that's fair. Let me contact the admins at carm to see if I can post our e-mail exchanges at carm. Give me a day or two for them to reply. If they don't like that, I will set up a blog or a discussion forum where I can post our e-mail exchanges.

It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.-- Abraham Lincoln, chiding the editor of a Springfield, Illinois, newspaper, quoted from Antony Flew, How to Think Straight, p. 17